linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] arm64: dts: qcom: Enable Crypto Engine for a few Qualcomm SoCs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ea863eac-58bd-cd61-ce5c-a0393bb4e4a8@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2023 09:35:35 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, agross@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        andersson@...nel.org, bhupesh.linux@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org, rfoss@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] arm64: dts: qcom: Enable Crypto Engine for a few
 Qualcomm SoCs

On 22/03/2023 09:33, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 at 00:57, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21.03.2023 20:01, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
>>> This patchset enables Crypto Engine support for Qualcomm SoCs like
>>> SM6115, SM8150, SM8250 and SM8350.
>>>
>>> While at it, also fix the compatible string for BAM DMA engine
>>> used in sdm845.dtsi
>>>
>>> Note that:
>>> - SM8250 crypto engine patch utilizes the work already done by myself and
>>>   Vladimir.
>>> - SM8350 crypto engine patch utilizes the work already done by Robert.
>>>
>>> This patchset depends on the dt-bindings patch which added support for
>>> SM6115 and QCS2290 SoCs:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230321184811.3325725-1-bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org/
>> You could have included that one here for easier tracking!
> 
> Err.. the dt-binding maintainers have been asking to split the
> dt-binding patches from
> the dts ones in the past. So, let's stick to that for now :)

For submissions? No, we did not.

Best regards,
Krzysztof